1 / 34

Starting Therapy for Low Risk Myeloma

Starting Therapy for Low Risk Myeloma. Robert Z. Orlowski, Ph.D., M.D. Director, Myeloma Section Professor, Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma & Experimental Therapeutics Principal Investigator, M. D. Anderson SPORE in Multiple Myeloma Chair, Southwest Oncology Group Myeloma Committee.

cece
Download Presentation

Starting Therapy for Low Risk Myeloma

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Starting Therapy for Low Risk Myeloma Robert Z. Orlowski, Ph.D., M.D. Director, Myeloma Section Professor, Departments of Lymphoma/Myeloma & Experimental Therapeutics Principal Investigator, M. D. Anderson SPORE in Multiple Myeloma Chair, Southwest Oncology Group Myeloma Committee

  2. Defining Risk : ISS Stage Greipp, PR et al. J Clin Oncol 23:3412, 2005.

  3. ISS and Prognosis • Significant survival differences for three stages (P < 0.0001) • Better outcome predictor than the prior Durie-Salmon method • Still does not incorporate cytogenetics Greipp, PR et al. J. Clin. Oncol. 23:3412, 2005.

  4. Molecular Staging : mSMART • Novel agents overcome del 13, t(4;14) http://msmart.org

  5. Risk and FISH : t(4;14) • t(4;14) is a poor risk feature for both OS and PFS even in patients with ISS stage I • Also stage II and III OS – t(4;14) OS + t(4;14) PFS - t(4;14) PFS + t(4;14) Avet-Loiseau, H et al. Leukemia Epub Oct 3, 2012.

  6. FISH Del 17p • Del 17p is another poor risk feature for both OS and PFS • t(14;16) • t(14;20) OS – del 17 OS + del 17 PFS - del 17 PFS + del 17 Avet-Loiseau, H et al. Leukemia Epub Oct 3, 2012.

  7. Hybrid Systems No del(13), t(4;14), or del(17p) & low b2 (n=155) del(13) only & low b2 (n=110) No del(13), ct(4;14), or del(17p) & high b2 (n=74) del(13) & high b2 (n=69) t(4;14) or del(17p) & high b2 (n=42) t(4;14) or del(17p) & low b2 (n=63)

  8. Primary Plasma Cell Leukemia • Outcomes have improved with novel agents for myeloma • This has not been the case for PPCL • PFS • OS Usmani, SZ et al. Leukemia Epub April 17, 2012.

  9. High LDH • High LDH predicts poor survival regardless of ISS stage Gkotzamanidou, M et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 11:409, 2011.

  10. Defining Risk : GEP70 • Expression profiling to identify high-risk patients • 30% of genes mapped to chr 1 • Independent predictor • HR 5.16, P < 0.001 Shaughnessy, JD Jr. et al. Blood 109:2276, 2007.

  11. Useful at Diagnosis and at Relapse • GEP70 profiling is useful not just in newly diagnosed patients, but also at relapse Shaughnessy, JD Jr. et al. Blood 109:2276, 2007.

  12. EMC-92 TT2 dataset TT3 dataset Kuiper, R et al. Leukemia Epub June 22, 2012.

  13. Overlap Between Signatures 21 overlapping genes • If only a few genes are in common, do they all play a role in myeloma pathobiology, or do only some? Kuiper, R et al. Leukemia Epub June 22, 2012.

  14. Do They Pass the Sniff Test? • ITPRIP, 10q25.1, Inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate receptor interacting protein (Ca) • ALDOA, 16p11.2, Aldolase A, fructose-bisphosphate (glycolysis) • PSMD4, 1q21.3, Proteasome 26S subunit, non-ATPase, 4 (binds Ub-proteins) • EXOSC4, 8q24.3, Exosome component 4 (RNA processing) • AURKA, 20q13, Aurora kinase A (cell cycle progression; drugged !) • ASPM, 1q31.3, Abnormal spindle-like microcephaly-associated protein (Dros.) • CKS1B, 1q21.2, CDC28 protein kinase regulatory subunit 1B (cell cycle, p27) • LTBP1, 2p22.3, Latent transforming growth factor beta binding protein 1 (activation of TGF-b) • BIRC5, 17q25.3, Baculoviral IAP repeat containing 5 (apoptosis inhibitor; ?drugged) • FANC1, 15q26.1, Fanconi anemia, complementation group I (DNA repair) • ESPL1, 12q13.13, Extra spindle pole bodies homolog 1 (S. cerevisiae)(protease with role in chromosome segregation) http://www.genecards.org

  15. Sniff Test Part II • MCM6, 2q21.3, Minichromosome maintenance complex component 6 (initiation of genome replication) • NCAPG, 4p15.31, Non-SMC condensin I complex, subunit G (conversion of interphase chromatin into mitotic-like condensed chromosomes) • SPAG5, 17q11.2, Sperm associated antigen 5 (chromosome segregation) • ZWINT, 10q21.1, ZW10 interactor (kinetochore formation and spindle checkpoint activity) • TMEM97, 17q11.2, Transmembrane protein 97 (cholesterol homeostasis) • MAGEA6, Xq28, Melanoma antigen family A, 6 (? Function; immunotherapy) • ITM2B, 13q14.2, Integral membrane protein 2B (protease inhibitor) • CDC2, 10q21.2, Cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (G1/S & G2/M checkpoints) • BUB1B, 15q15.1, Budding uninhibited by benzimidazoles 1 homolog beta (yeast)(spindle checkpoint function) • FAM49A, 2p24.2, Family with sequence similarity 49, member A (?) http://www.genecards.org

  16. Which GEP Signature is Best? Kuiper, R et al. Leukemia Epub June 22, 2012.

  17. GEP : Take Home Lessons • Among overlapping genes, most can be linked to a biological hypothesis • Replication/checkpoints/DNA repair • Validation of their roles as mediators of high risk is needed pre-clinically • Few have been drugged, and those that have were not studied in selected patients • Of the ones that haven’t been drugged, few look like they would be tumor-specific

  18. Diagnostic Criteria : MGUS, AMM • The International Myeloma Working Group • MGUS • Serum monoclonal (M) protein <3.0 g/dL, AND • Marrow plasmacytosis <10% (if done), AND • No disease-related symptoms • Asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma • Serum M protein (IgG or IgA) ≥3.0 g/dL, AND/OR • Marrow plasmacytosis ≥10%, AND • No disease-related symptoms Dimopoulos, M et al. Blood 117:4701, 2010.

  19. Risk of Progression • Approximately 1% per year for MGUS to myeloma or a related disorder • ~10%/year in the first 5 years for asymptomatic/smoldering myeloma Bladé, J et al. J Clin Oncol. 28:690, 2009.

  20. Risk Stratifying MGUS • Low risk • M protein <1.5 g/dL, IgG type and normal FLC ratio • ✔ SPEP @ 6 mos., then q 2-3 years if stable and asymptomatic • Intermediate/High risk • M protein ≥1.5 g/dL, non-IgG type and abnormal FLC ratio • ✔ SPEP @ 6 mos., then annually Rajkumar, SV et al. Blood 106:812, 2005. Kyle, RA et al. Leukemia 24:1121, 2010.

  21. Risk Stratifying AMM • Three groups • 1: M-protein ≥3 g/dL, marrow plasmacytosis ≥10% • 2: M-protein <3 g/dL, plasmacytosis ≥10% • 3: M-protein <3 g/dL, plasmacytosis <10% Bladé, J et al. J Clin Oncol. 28:690, 2009.

  22. Risk Stratification with sFLCs • Three risk factors • Plasma cells ≥10% • Serum M-protein ≥3 g/dL • Serum free light chain ratio <0.125 or >8 • Groups 1 and 2 in both systems may be candidates for prevention trials Bladé, J et al. J Clin Oncol. 28:690, 2009.

  23. Diagnostic Criteria : SMM • Symptomatic multiple myeloma • Clonal marrow plasmacytosis ≥10%, AND • Serum and/or urine M-protein (unless non-secretory), AND • Evidence of end-organ damage due to disease (CRAB) • HyperCalcemia (≥11.5 g/dL), or • Renal insufficiency (>2 mg/dL), or • Anemia (<10 g/dL or >2 g below nl), or • Bone lesions (lytic or osteopenic), or • Amyloidosis, or hyperviscosity, or frequent bacterial infections Dimopoulos, M et al. Blood 117:4701, 2010.

  24. Impact of Genome Sequencing • Frequent mutations in genes involved in RNA processing, protein translation, and the unfolded protein response • How many can we target therapeutically ? Chapman, MA et al. Nature 471:467, 2011.

  25. Other Gene Mutations • Do these involve micro RNAs and ncRNAs ? Chapman, MA et al. Nature 471:467, 2011.

  26. Impact of Genome Sequencing • Ability to detect different myeloma clones that wax and wane in importance with time • We will need to be craftier than the myeloma Keats, JJ et al. Blood Epub, April 12, 2012.

  27. 2010 ASH Abstract 991A Multicenter, Randomised, Open-label, Phase III Study of Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone versus Therapeutic Abstention in high-risk Smoldering MMMV Mateos, L López-Corral, MT Hernández, J de la Rubia, JJ Lahuerta, P Giraldo, J Bargay, L Rosiñol, A Oriol, J García-Laraña, l Palomera, F de Arriba, F Prósper, ML Martino, AI Teruel, J Hernández, G Estevez, M Mariz, A Alegre, JL Guzman, N Quintana, JL García, JF San Miguel.On behalf of Spanish Myeloma Group (PETHEMA/GEM)

  28. Study Design • 1o objective: TTP to symptomatic myeloma Standard Observation Asymptomatic Myeloma Patients PC ≥ 10% + MP ≥ 3.0 Or PC ≥ 10% or MP ≥ 3.0 and ≥ 95% aberrant immunophenotype + immunoparesis Treatment Cycles 1-9: Lenalidomide 25 mg po days 1-21 of every 28-day cycle + dexamethasone 20 mg po on days 1-4 and 12-15 Later Cycles: Lenalidomide 10 mg po days 1-21 of every 2-month cycle

  29. TTP to Active Disease Median follow-up: 32 months (range 12–49) Lenalidomide + dex Median TTP: NR 9 Progressions (15%) 5 pts:early disc followed by DP 4 pts:symptomatic DP Proportion of patients alive No treatment Median TTP: 23m 37 Progressions (59%) 20 patients: bone disease 7 patients: renal failure HR: 6.0; 95% IC (2.9–12.6); p < 0.0001 Time from inclusion

  30. TTP Excluding Early Discontinuation Median follow-up: 32 months (range 12–49) Lenalidomide + dex Median TTP: NR 4 Progressions (7%) 4 pts:symptomatic PD No treatment Median TTP: 23m 37 Progressions (59%) 20 patients: bone disease 7 patients: renal failure HR: 12.3; 95% IC (4.4–34.7); p < 0.0001

  31. Outcomes at Progression • At last f/u of maintenance therapy • 14 biological progressions • Dex was added according to the protocol • 2 pts: Improvement of response to PR • 10pts: Experienced stabilization of disease with dex • 8 remain stable after a median f/u of 19 m (4-31) • 2 pts: Progressed to active disease after 4 and 12 m • 1 pt: Progression to active disease before dex added • 1 pts: Withdrawal of informed consent

  32. Overall Survival from Inclusion Median follow-up: 32 months (range 12–49) 1.0 Len + Dex 0.8 No treatment 0.6 Proportion of patients alive p=0.04 0.4 Lenalidomide + Dex: 93% at 3 years No treatment: 76% at 3 years 0.2 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time from inclusion

  33. Overall Survival from Diagnosis Median follow-up: 38months (range 14–96) Len + Dex No treatment Proportion of patients alive HR: 5.01; 95% IC (1–22); p=0.03 Lenalidomide + Dex: 94% at 5 yrs No treatment: 79% at 5 yrs Time from inclusion

  34. Conclusions • “Low risk” myeloma can be identified, but low risk ≠ no risk myeloma • Current data support treating patients earlier in the disease process, not later • An occasional patient with low risk myeloma may benefit from watchful waiting • Older patient with low disease burden • Vast majority of low risk patients should be urgently started on induction therapy

More Related